Quote:
Originally Posted by jgd85
Okay let me explain this very simply put. You cannot compare peanuts to pit bulls. I know what you’re doing and it’s very clever, it’s called shock value. You want to take something very benign and silly and say "well we might as well just ban [insert absurd object here] if we are going to ban pit bulls because they harm people too". If it was only the owner of the pit bull that was getting attacked/killed and taking the risk, it would be comparable. Unfortunately for your arguments sake eating a peanut isn’t going to make some innocent child across the street choke. Once again you’re comparing apples to oranges.
|
How? He's comparing object with Property A to another object with Property A. Peanuts, if misused, can be deadly. Pit bulls, if misused are harmful. A misuse of a peanut would be to put it a food and serve it to someone with allergies. A misuse of a pit bull would be to train it to bite non-intrusive people. In both case when a certain circumstance is met it becomes deadly. However, if you insist that this isn't applicable because a pit bull is capable of thought and is a living thing (we'll call these B and C) and peanuts are not than we should also look at something with both properties B and C. I'll bring forth to you humans, again. Human beings when misused have properties A, and inherently have properties B and C. If these 3 things in conjunction with each other are what makes something worthy of banning than humans meet all criteria requisite to be banned. If we assume humans are exempt than how about pet snakes? Snakes have properties A, B, and C. Should we ban pet snakes? How about dogs in general? All dogs are capable of A under the right (er... wrong?) circumstances, and also have properties B and C inherently. Again, if A, B, and C in conjunction with each other is what meets criteria for ban than by your logic all dogs should be banned.
If this is not the case than why are they being banned?
Threaded Mode